Ten American Myths

I suppose it would be more accurate to say ten common myths, but since I’m an American and I see these in various guises in the media, not too mention spouted by my friends and acquaintances, I’m calling it as I see it. Myths may not be the might word either, misconceptions might be more accurate. Though since some of these misconceptions have driven American policy for decades or longer, often a terrible financial and personal cost to the nation, misconception seems too weak a word. With that in mind, maybe delusion or nightmare would be more accurate for some of them. In any event, these are some commonly held beliefs that I think are inaccurate at best, and my reasoning behind why I think so. So here, in no particular order, ten American delusions:

1. Jobs vs Environment. This one always gets me. The reality is it’s jobs vs corporate profits. Logging is a great example, most environmentalists don’t have a problem with logging, they just want it done in an environmentally sensitive way. In fact doing things in an environmentally sensitive way can create jobs, because environmentalists think the environment should be treated as capital, not profit. In any event when some corporate entity claims that some environmental policy will cost jobs, they usually mean it will reduce top end profits. And considering how much richer the rich have gotten the past few decades in America, I don’t really have a problem if top end profits are hurt some.

2. Regulation is Bad. This one is easy. There was a golden era in America where industry was almost completely unregulated. The late nineteenth century. It was a golden age for the ultra rich, the rest of us got screwed. Other recent highlights in deregulation history include the Enron scandal, the Savings and Loan scandal of the nineties, and the current mortgage meltdown. Deregulation is putting the fox in charge of the hen house, it’s not a great idea. I’m not saying that regulation doesn’t sometimes go to far, but when it doesn’t go far enough we all pay the price.

3. Privatization is Good. This one always makes me blink. Let’s see, an organization whose purpose in life is to syphon off profits is going to be able to perform a task more economically than an organization simply charged with performing the task? How’s that again? There’s so many examples where privatization has cost oodles of money compared to the alternative it’s not funny. The contractors (IE mercenaries) we are hiring in Iraq cost VASTLY more than having the Army do it. Yeah, that’s a good idea. And there’s other down sides as well. A privatized school system locally was a complete failure because the corporate owners worked assiduously to get rid of under-performing or (God forbid) special needs students.

4. Colour Blind America. Yes, after the Civil Rights movement the problem has all been fixed, in fact minorities enjoy all sorts of advantages now. I have a friend of Indian birth who recently moved back to Berkeley from Oregon because he got tired of everyone staring at him when he walked into restaurants/stores…and he got real tired of people picking fights with him in bars because they thought he was Mexican. America is still a white man’s country in a million subtle and not so subtle ways, and white men who say otherwise are the among the most pathetic whiners in history.

5. Protesters Lost Viet Nam/We Tied Our Own Hands. I covered this one more or less in my fine and under appreciated post: “We could have won in Vietnam“

6. War Helps the Economy. I was even taught this in school. Yes, in some magical sense blowing things up and building stuff whose only purpose is to destroy things is good for the economy. I’m not exactly sure how this one got so popular, since it seems self evident that ploughing a field or mining coal with a bayonet would be terribly inefficient. And war is definitely not good for the economy of people who are killed or maimed in the war, not to mention those who simply have their homes and livelihood destroyed. One has to wonder just whose economy benefits from war for this to be true, I have an idea though. I leave it to the gentle reader to “follow the money” as it were.

7. Rural Areas are Safe. This one makes me want to scream. A terrible crime happens in some rural area or small town, and people immediately wail that “This sort of this doesn’t happen here.” Aside from the prima facie absurdity of claiming that this sort of thing doesn’t happen…right after it happens…this is basically a poor understanding of statistics. Yes, there are more crimes in cities…because more people live in cities. But, but, but, even statistically cities are more dangerous! Yes, but that’s because cities have “bad areas” aka slums/projects where crime rates are through the roof. If one doesn’t live in one of those, cities are as safe or even safer than rural areas. The East Bay hills for example are practically crime free, except for the occasional burglary and car break-in. I have no rural living friends who can make that claim about their neighbourhoods.

8. Punishment Works. Another slam dunk basically. Scientists showed in the 1920s what humanitarians had known forever, punishment might be very emotionally satisfying to the punisher, but it’s a really bad way to get people to change their behaviour. In fact punishment and threat of punishment is the least effective way to change an organism’s behaviour. Yet almost daily I read some letter to the editor about how if we just make the prisons harsh enough, why, the prisoners will be sure to behave themselves when released for fear of going back! In reality, where I’m stuck co-existing with idiots like this, the more one “punishes” prisoners, the less they will be able to cope with normal society when released. Yeah, that’s a good idea.

9. Torture Works. Yes, torture works just fine. If you torture someone long enough, they will confess to anything and tell you whatever they think you want to hear. Will it be accurate? Probably not. Are there much better and more reliable ways to get accurate information from suspects? Absolutely. Has there ever been a situation in history where torture was the only option to find a ticking time bomb or what not? Outside of movies, I’ve never heard of one. And would torture even work in those cases? Of course not, people have resisted torture for years, if one knew there was a time limit almost anyone could simply keep lying.

10. Prohibition Works. The sad thing about this one is that as a society we realized in the thirties that alcohol prohibition was causing more problems than it fixed. I mean, rum-running armed gangs were shooting each other in the streets! And enormous police resources were being spent fighting these gangs, not to mention rounding up perfectly law abiding citizens whose only crime was to have some booze or wine in their homes. And hell, the law was routinely ignored by tens of millions of Americans who just kept their drinking private. Yet here we are a few generations later completely ignoring an utterly failed drug prohibition policy, locking up millions of Americans, and accomplishing nothing…while heavily armed gangs control entire neighbourhoods. Our grandparents were a lot smarter than us I guess, or at least able to see the writing on the wall. Or the blood on the street.

There’s more than ten of these myths, but this will do for now. And yes, each of my above points have has codicils and exceptions. And I suppose I come off sounding like we live in a vast sea of ignorance. Well, yes. Prove me wrong.

Like this:

Related

10 Responses

So much of what you have written here comes back to one thing, and one thing only: Selfishness. Americans seem to want free license to take as much as they want, from whomever or whatever they want, whenever they want, to suit their own purposes, and to hell with anyone or anything else. Some may argue that selfishness is a human trait, but so are compassion and community. The kind of rampant greed seen in the U.S. is only also seen in the corrupt governments of developing nations. The rest of the developed world has moved beyond that.

I ran across a link to your blog on anothers and am enjoying the read. I will put my thoughts below.

1. Then why not just go ahead and adopt Stalin’s model?

2. According to Cato regulation costs every man, woman and child in America $5,000-$7,000 yearly. Regulation rarely impacts business where it doesn’t hurt the consumer. You fail to point out the deregulation under Reagan that led to two decades of economic growth and prosperity. Balance is the key, but where is it?

3. Not sure how you arrive at this unless you are looking at examples that are not truly privatized. Real privatization is not commissioning a privately held monopoly as some think it is, but relegating the task to a competitive market. When firms compete the consumer is generally the winner, right?

4. One would have to walk a mile in anothers’ shoes to understand this. Sad. Do you think this is a failing of our educational, religious or political systems? Or none of the above?

5. I agree. I don’t think that anyone is immune to random violence although some areas are more prone to crime as you point out.

6. I really don’t know what I would have done during that time. Look forward to reading the article!

7. If one looks at economics in a purist sense then any expenditure (transaction) stimulates an economy. Most people don’t understand that “economy” is the tracking of movement, not statics. War would stimulate any economy as it means increased activity. The flow of funds from government to private corporations for weapons and the flow of funds from individuals and businesses to government is measurable during any war and therefore an economic stimulus. I am speaking from a purist sense here, though.

8. I guess this one could be debated both ways. There seem to be natural laws (cause and effect) that may be in play that would have to be considered. For example, if there was no punishment (disincentive) for breaking a law, then why have the law? If we don’t have law, then don’t we become victim to anarchy? If someone breaks the law, then what does one do about it? This seems to be a very deep and multi-dimensional topic, and I’d look forward to further comment!

9. I would be the least qualified to comment on this one.

10. This seems to be a hard one too. For example, in terms of death and enforcement, do we have just as many if not more as a result of the repeal of prohibition? I understand that a person dies from a drunk driver every 31 minutes and the deaths as a result since the repeal have been staggering. The cost of law enforcement on the streets to combat drunk driving, the alcohol related violent crimes, the cost of regulation, the cost to society as a whole could be far more than what we experienced during prohibition.

This would raise many questions also concerning prohibition of drugs, weapons, behaviors, etc. “Prohibition” is just a cognomen given during a time when politics were in favor of eradicating unpopular laws.

As you said, there are many codicils and exceptions, but many of them must be considered by those rational.

In response to John:
1. “Then why not just go ahead and adopt Stalin’s model?”
Ah, the good old comparison with the worst case. What is it with you people? How about the European model? Can’t you see anything else than the “American Way” and the worst cases? There’s nothing in-between, is that it?

4. “When firms compete the consumer is generally the winner, right?”
Not really. Compare the private healthcare model of the US to the public one of the UK (http://theobservershunch.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-health-care-why-state-wins.html). In Canada, when they deregulated telephone services, base costs jumped threefold within a few years. There is a lot of cases where privatization cost more that public. Can you give us real data that show that the consumer is generally the winner?

7. In terms of GNP, cancer, clearcutting and oil spills are also good for the economy.

8. I guess it’s a question of defining what punishments (or, more accurately, consequences) work.

9. It has been shown (sorry, I don’t have the reference with me) that intelligence gathered through torture is generally unreliable. After all, according to intelligence gathered by the Inquisition, there were a lot of witches…

10. It has been shown that education is much more effective than prohibition, and way less costly.

1. Privatization – Perhaps you’d like to come to India & see how crappy the government laid roads are – and compare them to roads laid by Larsen & Toubro. Or, see how fugly the government-maintained airports are. This is so out-of-sync with the current economy of India.

Now finally, we have a decent aviation minister – he’s modernizing airports – by privatizing construction.

There is no incentive for improvement in a government-run enterprise. I agree that large corporations become evil, but I’m not happy with the alternative.

2. Punishments – Neurologists have found that we learn thru both positive & negative reinforcements.

While rehabilitation is important in prisons, they should be used in conjunction with some kind of punishment.

And 1 more thing. Seeking revenge is normal – I’m not justifying it, but I think that’s the way it is. If people can’t lock up the turds that hurt them – their reliance on the law & order system will weaken.

Thanks for the comments. I’m honoured by the response to this post, I will answer the various points raised in another post this week. The goal of this post was to elicit thought and debate, clearly I’ve succeeded in that regard. And I’ll certainly think about me of the interesting points raised. —Doug

[…] amazingly enough lots of Americans believe exactly that, I suppose I should have put it in my Ten American Myths post. No, the North was supporting insurgents in the south, so the USA picked a fight with North […]